Aslam Rafiq Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra Bail Application Bombay Sessions Court

MHCC020000892024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2024

Aslam Rafiq Shaikh … Applicant/accused

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra (Through of R.C.F. Police Station vide C.R. No. 657/2023) … Respondent/State

Appearance :Mr. Imran Shaikh, Ld. Advocate for Applicant/Accused.
Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2024
(ORAL ORDER) (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

This is an application filed by applicant/accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.657/2023 registered with RCF police station for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.

2.The applicant/accused submitted that he has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case.

Prima facie the charge under Sections 326, 307 of IPC levelled against applicant will not be applicable. No purpose will be served by detaining applicant in custody. The co-accused is granted bail. The applicant is ready to abide by any term and condition imposed by the court. Hence, applicant/accused prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R. 657/2023 registered with RCF police
station.

3. The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.2 and resisted the application on the ground that if bail is granted to applicant/accused then he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and complainant. If bail is granted to applicant/accused then he will not remain present before the Court. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail application.

4.Heard applicant/accused Ld. and Adv. Ld. Mr. APP Imran O.S. Shaikh for the Maraskolhe for
Respondent/State.

5.Perused the contents of application and say filed by investigating officer. On the basis of the report lodged by informant namely Mukesh Jadhav, the RCF police station registered the C.R. No.657/2023 against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and later on investigating officer added Sections 307 and 504 of I.P.C. in the said crime. It is alleged that on 7.11.2023 at about 9.30 p.m. in open space in between building No.8 and 9 at New RNA Park, Vashi
Naka, Chembur, the brother of infor mant namely Manoj and his ladylove Gulisa were quarreling with each other. At that time Noor Mohd. Hanif Shaikh and his son Aman Noor Mohd. Shaikh and his relative Aslam Shaikh came there and they assaulted the brother of informant by fist blows. When informant and his wife namely Neelam was separating the quarrel, at that time accused Aman assaulted to the informant by means of belt. Accused Aslam Shaikh also assaulted informant by bamboo stick on his head and caused grievous injuries. The accused Aman also assaulted the wife of informant namely Neelam by means of belt on her left hand and caused injury. Thereafter, informant lodged report against accused at RCF police station.

6.It is to be noted that the name of applicant/accused is mentioned in FIR. I have gone through FIR. After going through FIR it appears that the allegation levelled against the applicant/accused is that he assaulted informant by means of bamboo stick on his head and caused injury. Admittedly bamboo stick is recovered. It is material to note that the medical certificate of informant is not showing injury on head of informant. Thus it is clear that there is contradiction in respect of the injury certificate and allegation levelled by the complainant in FIR against present accused. In my view the injury certificate is not corresponding with the allegation in FIR. If really the blow was given to complainant on his head in
that case said injury could have appeared in medical certificate. But the such is not the position. Moreover, the complainant is already discharged from the hospital. He is out of danger. Hence,
applicant/accused is entitled to be released on bail.

7.In present case, the investigation of the crime is completed and charge-sheet has been filed against accused persons.

Other accused is granted bail. Hence, applicant/accused is entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity.

8.In present case during the course of investigation, only clothes have been recovered from applicant. No any weapon recovered at the instance of applicant/accused.

The applicant/accused is ready to abide by terms and conditions imposed by the Court. The applicant/accused is in jail since 11.11.2023. No purpose will be served by keeping him behind bar.
It will take time to commence the trial of the case. Therefore, applicant/accused is entitled for grant of regular bail by imposing terms and conditions.

9.Considering the nature of offence and the role played by the applicant/accused in the crime, I am of the view that the applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail. Hence, application needs to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :

ORDER

1.Criminal Bail Application No.12 of 2024 filed by Applicant/accused is allowed.

2.Applicant/accused namely Aslam Rafiq Shaikh, resident of Vashi Naka, Chembur, Mumbai be released on regular bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.40,000/- along with one or more sureties in like amount in connection with C.R. No. 657/2023 registered with RCF Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. on following conditions :(a) The applicant/accused is directed to attend the Court on each date of hearing of case.

(b) The applicant/accused is directed not to enter into the vicinity wherein the informant resides.

(c) The applicant/accused and his sureties shall provide their respective residential addresses, mobile numbers and email addresses, if any to investigation officer. The applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in address or telephone number and Email ID forthwith.

(d) The applicant/accused should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to
Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with the evidence and prosecution witnesses.

(e) The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior permission of Ld. Court.

(f) Breach of any conditions by the the applicant/accused, shall result in cancellation of bail.

3.Provisional cash bail of Rs.40,000/- is allowed to the applicant/accused for period of 4 weeks to furnish surety from the date of release.

4.Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

5.Criminal Bail Application No. 12 of 2024 stands disposed off accordingly.

Date : 12.02.2024 [A.S. SALGAR] ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE GREATER MUMBAI (C.R. No.24)
6 Dictated on : 12/02/2024 Transcribed on : 12/02/2024 HHJ signed on : 14/02/2024 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” Upload Date Upload Time
14/02/2024 5.15 p.m. Name of Stenographer PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24) Room No.) Date of Pronouncement JUDGMENT /ORDER of 12/02/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 14/02/2024 P.O. on JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 14/02/2024 on